(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Series: Response

Defending jobs and services must be our current priority

The fight against a world dominated by work cannot begin during an economic crisis

Nina Power poses some interesting questions about the centrality of work in our society (In search of a new slogan, 29 July). She is critical of the Right to Work campaign for focusing on workers and unions and argues that our slogan plays into the idea that "work is the ultimate mark of a man or, in more recent decades, a woman too".

I agree we need to fight for a world where work, far from dominating and oppressing our lives, becomes something rewarding for humanity and our planet, something liberating and enjoyable. But in the meantime fear of losing one's job, management bullying, unpaid overtime, work "experience", long hours and fewer breaks are the reality of the lives of many women and men.

In resisting the austerity measures of the coalition government, our campaign aims to unite those in work with those not working, pensioners, students, disability campaigners and all of us who rely on public services.

Power argues that "the model of work presupposed by Right to Work is a worthy, classical one". Yet at our conference in May, attended by over 600, our contributors included migrant workers leading campaigns among cleaners, and young people who have organised in the call centres and supermarkets where they work.

My experience of 30 years as an active trade unionist is that it is in struggles such as these that people discover that fighting to defend what we have is not enough, and start looking for answers.

As Power says: "Thinking of a world with less but better work, or even no work at all (as we currently understand it), particularly in the midst of an economic crisis, is impractical, of course. Yet thinking about alternatives to the current system, however unfathomable, may help us to break with much that is wrong about our everyday existence."

Our campaign has debated how the battle to defend jobs and services can be linked to an alternative vision where we are not just expected to pay the price of economic crisis. In the case of the Visteon car component plant closure, the debate about what socially and environmentally useful role the factory could perform was a feature of that fight. At the Vestas wind turbine factory, anyone could see the insanity of allowing Britain's only wind turbine manufacturer to be axed. That struggle helped build the popularity of the campaign for a million green jobs.

We do need a debate about alternatives, including the right not to work. But government plans to "simplify" benefits will be another way of forcing people into whatever work they can get.

So, in the immediate term, Power is right to say we are about resisting "attacks on jobs and services" plus "pay cuts, worsening conditions and pension reform". That is why we will be demonstrating outside the Tory party conference in October. I hope Power will be there, along with all those who don't want to accept what is being dished out to us.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Post a comment
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • lightacandle lightacandle

    11 Aug 2010, 12:51AM

    I think you are both after the same thing in the long term which is to be admired and we do need to confront this whole conflict of work v family life but at the moment the focus has to be on the issues of the day. There is a place for the other debate too but I don't think it will get very far with this government. A hope for some time in the future I would say. Lets be optimistic and say the not too distant future.

  • trader trader

    11 Aug 2010, 1:27AM

    will be another way of forcing people into whatever work they can get.

    Yeah welcome to the real world. Nobody owes you a living, if you think that a wind turbine manufacturing company is such a good idea then go and set one up. You can take all your union pals with you.

  • Oldgitom Oldgitom

    11 Aug 2010, 2:24AM

    Since journalists are not doing it, I point out again that distributing money via work is an obsolescent, 19C anachronism. After 200 years of applied science & technology, the production industries have been shorn of workers. Our Tory government knows full well that the jobs are not there any more. All the more shamelessly cynical the 'no work, no dole' campaign.

    Apart from productive work, there is still a social need for the kinds of non-profitable people services that require 'hands'. So let's organize unemployed volunteers, under the guidance of paid professionals. A lot of unpaid work for chariries, etc., goes on already. Many would step forward, if only out of boredom & for company

    But let us have a universal wage for all those who either cannot find a job, or who simply don't want one. Yes, 'trader', they can stay in bed all day if they wish. Would you employ a workshy layabout?

    Tax money to pay a universal wage is not 'lost', since unlike bankers' bonuses, it is recycled straight into the economy as increased demand (& even traders like some of that). The tax burden should fall on the parasites who live off land, rents, & financial juggling - the sort of people who amass fortunes from compound interest as they sleep. OGT

  • mbtflyingSitefan mbtflyingSitefan

    11 Aug 2010, 4:31AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • RobinGoodfellow RobinGoodfellow

    11 Aug 2010, 5:15AM

    Oldgitom

    A universal wage is a ridiculous idea. Why the hell should I, or anyone else, sacrifice what I have earned for people who simply cannot be bothered?

    Nobody would begrudge social security payments to those genuinely in need but they should be a safety net, nothing more. It is already the case that some people see it is a lifestyle choice and that is simply unacceptable.

    Your suggestions regarding the tax burden imply that you would penalise those who take risks and generate jobs and wealth and therefore taxes, and reward those who contribute nothing. Sadly this sort of unworkable, unrealistic and, frankly. counter-productive attitude is one of the (many) reasons that the government of the last 13 years have left us with such a mess.

    It really is a very simple premise - reward those who generate wealth and you will incentivise others to do so. However if you reward those who simply don't care then all you will do is encourage others to do the same and lock yourself into a downward spiral

  • stiller stiller

    11 Aug 2010, 6:15AM

    "Why the hell should I, or anyone else, sacrifice what I have earned for people who simply cannot be bothered?"

    I'm with you comrade, down with the idle rich!

    "It really is a very simple premise - reward those who generate wealth and you will
    incentivise others to do so."

    Great idea, we'll know we've succeeded when the wealthiest people in the world
    are engineers, scientists, designers, inventors and all the others that create the wealth rather than those that leech it off the productive members of society.

  • Snapshackle Snapshackle

    11 Aug 2010, 6:27AM

    If you think this lot are going to listen to reason you are deluding yourselves.

    The route towards a balanced, harmonious, sustainable, just and equitable society is certainly not the one chosen by Cameron and his Gofer. They are only interested in maximizing their cut of the economic cake, and throwing everyone else sufficient crumbs to stop them rioting in the streets.

    Make no mistake the impoverishment of the majority is part of the game plan to keep wages low and and the Proles mean and hungry.

  • TonyPancake TonyPancake

    11 Aug 2010, 6:50AM

    Check out this history of struggle, the sell-out and manipulations by the unions ( in this case, Unison), by the SWP and by Candy Udwin, back in the early 90s when Major's government health attacks were turning health into hell. The slogan at the time , when Virginia Bottomley was Health Mini-tsar, was "Give Bottomley a lobotomy". Suggestions for a good one for McGimpsey below please.

    As for "Right to work" - well, "Arbeit Macht Frei".

  • Gigolo Gigolo

    11 Aug 2010, 6:53AM

    "We do need a debate about alternatives, including the right not to work."

    Does that mean the "right" to sponge off the State, i.e., the taxpayer?

  • Manningtreeimp Manningtreeimp

    11 Aug 2010, 7:26AM

    So according to the above, the Tories "know the jobs aren't out there" and that no-one has a right to " sponge off the taxpayer"

    Hmmm...kind of puts their entire welfare reform and economic policy in shit street then, really.

  • conanthebarbarian conanthebarbarian

    11 Aug 2010, 7:45AM

    It really is a very simple premise - reward those who generate wealth and you will incentivise others to do so. However if you reward those who simply don't care then all you will do is encourage others to do the same and lock yourself into a downward spiral

    So everyone is the same are they? We all see the reward in wealth creation and start our own businesses? Similarly, everyone would be happy watching Dave and claiming the dole? Methinks your analysis is too simplistic.

    I can't help but think that somewhere the human race took a wrong turn.

  • wasson wasson

    11 Aug 2010, 7:54AM

    A universal wage is a ridiculous idea. Why the hell should I, or anyone else, sacrifice what I have earned for people who simply cannot be bothered?

    Because not all of them "simply cannot be bothered". However, once you have succesfully demonised anyone unemployed as "simply not bothered" you can successfully launch assaults on them driving them into destitution. You are clearly completely unaware of how difficult it is to live on £60 a week. Try it some time. But no running to the bank on Monday when all your money has gone and you still have another 6 days to find something to eat.

    It really is a very simple premise - reward those who generate wealth and you will incentivise others to do so.

    Don't worry about rewarding the bankers - they have already rewarded themselves. Fred Godwin needs no more of our help, he is doing just fine thank you very much.

  • EssexEpictetus EssexEpictetus

    11 Aug 2010, 9:10AM

    You write: "We do need a debate about alternatives, including the right not to work." And who provides the money for a non-worker to buy food and shelter? Those of us working I guess. Since when was it a right to expect others to support you if you won't support yourself? What happens if we all claim that "right"? No doubt when India, China and other up and coming economies have out-competed us and none of us are working there will be another article saying how it's our right to be supported by annual grants from their successful economies. Their answer will be short: two words; second one "off".

    The lifeboat is sinking and all you can do is hand out holiday brochures, because people have a right not to pull on an oar or bail out the water.

    Your worst offence is that such left-wing happy-clappytrap damages the whole idea of supporting those in genuine need.

  • Loganbend Loganbend

    11 Aug 2010, 9:52AM

    Spikediswhack
    11 Aug 2010, 7:21AM

    Does that mean the "right" to sponge off the State, i.e., the taxpayer?

    I know, it's outrageous, let's start by sorting out the Queen.

    Absolutely - lets take back the £7.9 mill she gets from the Civil List.

    Of course she would have to get back the £190 million p.a. generated by the Crown Estates Ltd but thats a small price to pay to be rid of the sponging , , ,er, , ,

  • Mickyboy Mickyboy

    11 Aug 2010, 10:15AM

    Does no-one else think that "defending jobs" and "defending services" are two very different issues?

    My primary experience of work comes from 40 years in local government where the rise of "managerialism" has created tier upon tier of highly paid (and completely pointless) managers, while services are either outsourced to incompetent private operators (the appalling Capita just being the worst) or left to be run by poorly paid and underfunded council workers at the bottom of the heap.
    It seems that the NHS is in a similar position.
    Here is a real opportunity to radically improve services by getting rid of several tiers of management and investing half of their salaries into service provision and saving the other half.
    Local and National government and the NHS have become an easy touch for middle-class non-achievers to make lots of money by simply occupying a meaningless management niche. Let them work for a living.

  • Littleorangedogs Littleorangedogs

    11 Aug 2010, 10:42AM

    Does no-one else think that "defending jobs" and "defending services" are two very different issues?

    Yeah, but...sssh! If people find out that employing vast numbers of public servants to tick boxes and check that other public servants have ticked their boxes properly doesn't actually produce more tractors, and might even be counterproductive...it just doesn't bear thinking about.

  • neoconsRfascists neoconsRfascists

    11 Aug 2010, 10:46AM

    I believe those who replied to some points Oldgitom makes in his post still missing the critical key to his expressed view, i.e.:

    Oldgitom
    11 Aug 2010, 2:24AM

    Since journalists are not doing it, I point out again that distributing money via work is an obsolescent, 19C anachronism. After 200 years of applied science & technology, the production industries have been shorn of workers. Our Tory government knows full well that the jobs are not there any more. All the more shamelessly cynical the 'no work, no dole' campaign.

    I absolutely agree - in our technological age and with British heavy industries demolished - simply there is not enough "real work" to go around. What is left predominantly is either manual, service-oriented or soft skills-based (i.e. policy, PR, events, consultancy, etc.).

    One can argue that very little of any of these jobs outputs are required anyway. We can imagine that with the local government budget cuts there will be fewer social services available, less frequent rubbish collections, etc.

    The current government is now focused on accumulating wealth from what little private sector can skim from Britsh public, that's why they need high number of unemployed being forced to work for little or nothing, so that their corporate friends are still able to turn some profit.

  • mannin mannin

    11 Aug 2010, 12:08PM

    our campaign aims to unite those in work with those not working, pensioners, students, disability campaigners and all of us who rely on public services.

    That's like everyone then ? Including David and Sam Cameron. Is it just everyone in the UK or all those others in different countries ?

  • bagsos bagsos

    11 Aug 2010, 12:31PM

    Apologies for the last post - there was a problem with the link.

    Anyway, as I said, what struck me was this from the article:-

    Our campaign has debated how the battle to defend jobs and services can be linked to an alternative vision where we are not just expected to pay the price of economic crisis. In the case of the Visteon car component plant closure, the debate about what socially and environmentally useful role the factory could perform was a feature of that fight.

    Now correct me if I am wrong here but my recollection was that Visteon, having been sold by Ford in 2000, went bust in 2009, having lost £650m in the UK. You can campaign all you like but there is no way in the world that those jobs could have been saved, and the owners of Visteon (its creditors) rightly have no interest whatsoever in the "socially or environmentally useful role" of the plant.

  • CharleySays CharleySays

    11 Aug 2010, 12:40PM

    But government plans to "simplify" benefits will be another way of forcing people into whatever work they can get.

    Bloody good job too. If you can work then you should not be claiming benefits.

  • Indypops Indypops

    11 Aug 2010, 1:11PM

    I agree we need to fight for a world where work, far from dominating and oppressing our lives, becomes something rewarding for humanity and our planet, something liberating and enjoyable.

    With due respect to Candy Udwin, work HAS to 'dominate' our lives, for without it we are nothing and the world as we know it would not exist. Man was put on earth for one thing, to procreate. And procreation could only be sustained by utilising all the bounty contained within, and on earth.

    A coalminer could never rise to the point of finding his job 'liberating' and 'enjoyable', but by his efforts (and yes, the human cost) mankind moves a step forward. Just as it does by the efforts of rice-planters working in paddy-fields.

    The only class of person who might find their work 'rewarding, liberating and enjoyable', would be that new breed of person benefitting from an entirely new approach to work, by not engaging in that form of democracy while reaping the (unearned) rewards from it.

  • Sidebar Sidebar

    11 Aug 2010, 1:12PM

    "....way of forcing people into whatever work they can get."
    and of course whatever the terms and conditions.

    But isn't this what you expect from the Tory Party? After all they are called the 'Nasty' party, with good reason. The reason why Cameron is pursuing the 'welfare scroungers' for some incalculable amount of money, possibly one third of the £5b or so paid to the recipients, but not a mention of the hundreds of billions lost to the Treasury because of tax dodging schemes.

  • mombser2 mombser2

    11 Aug 2010, 3:03PM

    What was it Mr Micawber said-?

    And if we do not get our debt down and I do not care how (All suggestions welcome)

    Then start getting out your suitcases to carry the money you will need to by a loaf of bread!

  • peterthompson49 peterthompson49

    11 Aug 2010, 4:13PM

    Contributor Contributor

    The reason there are so may public sector jobs is because the structural changes in capitalism over the past 40 years have meant that the state has had to step in to provide work so that the level of aggregate demand can be kept high enough. We pay peter to buy from paul so that paul can pay taxes so that peter can be paid. The other part of the equation was that in order to lubricate the system it was also necessary to provide private liquidity and leveraging in the form of credit and loans to buy the things which low aggregate demand was leaving unsold.
    The level of credit expansion and housing based asset bubbles was one which was bound to collapse at some point and more perspicacious commentators were aware of it years ago. However, to blame New Labour's policies or some sort of antedeluvian commitment to the state for its own sake on the part of the unions is to misunderstand the structural nature of the change which overcame the world economy after the mid-70s. There was simply no alternative to the wrong road of liberalised and privatised spending backed up by state sponsored employment. Equally there is now no alternative to hacking back on spending as well as reducing the role of the state if one wishes to stay within the system. The demand for a right to work therefore becomes not simply a defensive position but actually requires a further structural change to a different form of society. IN that sense there is a clear linear and structural link between Nina Power and Candy Unwin and not an opposition.

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

|

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Latest posts

Compare insurance

Search insurance policies

Get an insurance quote for your travel, home, car, life and health, dental and more

Find local professional advice

Search UK-wide for an independent financial advisor or legal expert in your local area who meets your personal requirements

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

More from Response